For reprint rights or to purchase a copy of your Daily Journal photo, email Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com for prices or call 213-229-5424.

To buy more copies, call 866-531-1492 or email subscribe@dailyjournal.com
This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...
Daily appellate reports
Enewsletter Sign-up
    Filter by date
     to 
    Search by Case Name
    Search by Judge
    Search by Case Number
    Search by DJ Citation Number
    Search by Category
    Search by Court
Name Category Published
Modification: People v. Hall
Petitioner's arrest and probation reports, although hearsay, were sufficiently reliable under the circumstances to support their admissibility in determining whether petitioner was eligible for relief under Proposition 64. 		Evidence 2DCA/6 Oct. 10, 2019
McHugh v. Protective Life Insurance
Insurance Code Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72 only applied to term life insurance policies issued or delivered after January 1, 2013, so they could not apply to the relevant policy as appellants claimed. 		Insurance 4DCA/1 Oct. 10, 2019
Modification: People v. Mejia
True finding of premeditated and deliberation as an aider and abettor cannot be based on the natural and probable consequences doctrine, so that finding must be vacated. 		Criminal Law and Procedure 4DCA/3 Oct. 10, 2019
Modification: Cheema v. L.S. Trucking, Inc.
Under Penal Code Section 3287, prejudgment interest is appropriate where damages are certain or capable of being made certain by calculation if the defendant actually knows the damage amount. 		Civil Procedure 1DCA/4 Oct. 9, 2019
Maacama Watershed Alliance v. County of Sonoma
Opinions of local residents, based largely on views of different structure, did not constitute substantial evidence that winery will have a significant aesthetic impact; thus, judgment was affirmed. 		Environmental Law 1DCA/4 Oct. 9, 2019
Sprengel v. Zbylut
In determining whether an attorney entered into an 'implied' attorney-client relationship to represent the interests of the individual partners of an entity a court must assess the totality of circumstances. 		Attorneys 2DCA/7 Oct. 9, 2019
Supershuttle International Inc. v. Labor & Workforce Development Agency
Defendants' anti-SLAPP motion failed because plaintiff's allegations did not arise from protected activity, but rather from the Labor Commissioner's intended act of refusing to recognize a superior court judgment. 		Anti-SLAPP 2DCA/8 Oct. 9, 2019
Estate of Holdaway
Plaintiff's creditor's claim and complaint were both timely filed, and although plaintiff's complaint was uncertain in some respects, plaintiff should have the opportunity to plead around those uncertainties. 		Civil Procedure 4DCA/2 Oct. 9, 2019
Bedrosian v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Challenge to timeliness of Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment must be raised in the partnership-level proceeding itself, and failure to do so results in forfeiture of the argument. 		Tax 9th Oct. 9, 2019
Amended Opinion: Zabriskie v. Federal National Mortgage Association
A seller of software to a company that uses the software product to process credit report information is not a consumer reporting agency because it is not "assembling or evaluating" any information. 		Consumer Law 9th Oct. 9, 2019
Ray v. County of Los Angeles
Order 		9th Oct. 9, 2019
Myles v. Pennymac Loan Services
It is not enough for a homeowner to allege a mortgage assignment was voidable. The homeowner must provide facts supporting why the assignment is void as a matter of law. 		Real Property 2DCA/8 Oct. 9, 2019
Barajas v. Appellate Division
Application of exclusionary rule at a probable cause hearing under Penal Code Section 991 was not required; Section 1538.5 is the Legislature's codification of the exclusionary rule. 		Criminal Law and Procedure 2DCA/1 Oct. 8, 2019
People v. Medrano
Appellant failed by choice or inadvertence to exercise his right to make a record of mitigating youth-related evidence, and remand to allow him to make such a showing was not warranted. 		Criminal Law and Procedure 4DCA/2 Oct. 8, 2019
Enclarity Inc v. Fulton
Order 		USSC Oct. 8, 2019
Webster v. U.S.
Order 		USSC Oct. 8, 2019
Bachiller v. U.S.
Order 		USSC Oct. 8, 2019
Humbert v. U.S.
Order 		USSC Oct. 8, 2019
Martin v. U.S.
Order 		USSC Oct. 8, 2019
Solomon v. U.S.
Order 		California Courts of Appeal Oct. 8, 2019
Escourse-Westbrook v. U.S.
Order 		USSC Oct. 8, 2019
Mendoza v. U.S.
Order 		USSC Oct. 8, 2019
Herrera v. U.S.
Order 		USSC Oct. 8, 2019
Rodriguez v. U.S.
Order 		USSC Oct. 8, 2019
Lin v. U.S.
Order 		USSC Oct. 8, 2019
Duhart v. U.S.
Order 		USSC Oct. 8, 2019
Contreras v. U.S.
Order 		USSC Oct. 8, 2019
Greer v. U.S.
Order 		USSC Oct. 8, 2019
Gilbert v. U.S.
Order 		USSC Oct. 8, 2019
Cook v. U.S.
Order 		USSC Oct. 8, 2019
By using our website, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. You can learn more about how we use cookies by reviewing our Privacy Policy here.